I think that most of us casual internet fans realize that.
Everyday we click on our favorite baskeball sites hoping to read about "the trade" that brought a franchise player to the Pistons to play with these "non"-franchise guys.

...Although Drummond could be one.
...Kevin Love is pretty good.
...Our '13 1st rounder could be a franchise dude.

+/- stats can be deceptive because of limited sample size and confounding variables (other players), but right now the Pistons' best 2-man combination is Villanueva and Drummond, its second-best is Knight and Drummond, and the third best is Knight and Villanueva. Care to guess what their best 3-man combination is?

I know it's unthinkable because CV is actually BoT, but he and Drummond form a really difficult-to-stop duo offensively. In addition, Drummond is so good defensively that he makes up for BoT's terrible individual defense.

Stuckey(PG on offense, SG on defense)/Knight(SG on offense, PG on defense)/Prince/BoT/Drummond is +53.4 points per 100 possessions. Again, this is a small sample size and quality of opponent, but I like it - solid defensively, dangerous from the outside offensively. It would allow Knight, Prince, and BoT to roam the perimeter and keep their defenders out of the lane, allowing Stuckey to collide as he collides best.

I'm a little sick of watching Dre try to defend the entire paint without help. He's able to do it to some extent, but I don't think it is optimal just so that Villanueva can shoot a couple 3's. I'd rather see Knight force a few more and tighten up the D. Moving Charlie to the SF spot might help, expecially if we don't require him to sag off his man. Just let them drive by and he can cherry pick on the break.

The fundamentals of a winning basketball team is not that difficult. You need:

1 - A ball handler, typically your PG
2 - A good perimeter defender who can hit outside shots when open, either at the 2 or 3 spot
3- A good long range shooter wingman, either at the 2 or 3 spot
4 - A scoring big man who can hit mid-range jumpers and can also post up
5 - A defensive presence in the paint who also cleans up the offensive glass.

The 2004 title team was amazing because we had all of these spots covered and each and every one of them were very good at what they did.

Our current starting lineup is unsuccessful because:

1- Our primary ball handler (Knight) is not consistently good and on average is quite mediocre at what he does at the moment.
2- Our perimeter defender (Prince) is also trying to be the go-to man on offense and is really only a shell of the defender he was with the 2004 team.
3- Our primary scoring wingman (Singler) isn't a premier scorer at all.
4- Our scoring big man (Monroe) hesitates to hit those mid-range jumpers.
5- Our defensive presence in the paint (Maxiell) is severely undersized.

We are trying to force the guy who was "the perimeter defender who can hit shots" in his prime to the "primary scoring wingman" in the twilight days of his career. It just doesn't work.

Singler, who plays the role of the "perimeter defender who can hit outside shots when open" on the offensive end of the field is just a mediocre defender.

In many games, our defensive presence man, Maxiell, ends up being used as the go-to shooter wingman. Terrible use of players.

So, out of the 5 key player types a contender team should have, we have only one of them in place with our starting lineup. That would be Monroe and he's not doing all the things he needs to do to fill that role very well.

The reason why Drummond-CV pairing works is because you have the 4/5 spots covered adequately. The reason why that pairing works better than the Drummond/Monroe pairing is:
1- Drummond/CV typically play against the bench players.
2- Monroe doesn't like to hit the mid-range jumper, so the opposing defenses can just pack the paint.
3- Whenever Monroe/Drummond are on the floor together we don't have reliable outside shooters.

So, I think that if we can replace Singler/Prince with players that really fit the #2 & #3 roles (Tony Allen/Paul Pierce for instance), and move Drummond to the starting lineup we can actually make some noise. The easiest way is to get a stud scorer at the SG spot and force Prince back to the role he always had as a player. That's why KGREG's "OJ MAYO NOW" song makes sense to me for instance.

We haven't really seen too much Monroe/ Drummond this year so far. I'd like to get a steady month of it before admitting that it might be worse than CV/ Drum. I just can't believe that would be true with all else being equal.

Also, consider that Drummond might just be so good that all other players who happen to share court time with him get huge +/- boosts. Maggette and Bynum are probably the biggest coat tail riders so far (although Bynum was the only player so far this year to intentionally set up Dre).

I think that we should consider taking Phil Jackson up on his offer to LA. We could give him an ownership stake in the team and he wouldn't have to travel out of LA for home games or away games. He could text his lineup decisions to his assistant coach, Lawrence Frank (who would still be under contract).

Isiah averaged 19.1 pts/36 vs Chauncey's 17.3 (10% more), but that's of course because he shot more often, 16.1 FGA to 12.5 (shot 21% more often).
Isiah averaged more assists, 9.2 to 6.2, but he turned it over more, 3.7 to 2.4. Those turn into basically the same A/tov ratio. However, with the same ratio, you would of course favor the guy with the higher volume.

Chauncey was a much more efficient scorer.
Isiah was a more prolific passer, but with virtually the same ast/tov ratio.
Isiah was much more dangerous in terms of steals.
Rebs and blks were a push.

Defense? Both were key members of some of the best defensive teams in the modern era. Chauncey had a career ORAT of 118 and DRAT of 107. Isiah had a career ORAT of 106 and DRAT of 107. By that measure, they were similar, but there are so many variables that go into that, so I'm not relying on it over a career (more useful for comparing teammates in the same season). I have a hard time coming to a conclusion on a point guards overall defensive impact based on my observations. There is a lot to optimizing defense at that position that goes unnoticed (getting back to stop breaks for example instead of driving and missing a bad layup).

Leadership? Both were captains of Championship teams. Both had the chance to create mini dynasties and came up just short. Different styles, but both were effective IMO. Both had strong character Centers who also put their imprint on the teams.

I'm guessing that Chauncey's efficiency on offense got him ahead of Isiah in the formulas used for that article. I'm not sure if that is fair or not. You have to wonder if the extra assists that he doled out made up for the 20% extra shooting at a worse percentage.

Then of course you have to factor in the league-wide defense of both eras to see if Isiah's lower shooting percentage was comparable. The 1990 Pistons held opponents to 98.3 points per 100 possessions (best defense in the league that year). The 2004 Pistons held opponents to 84.3 points per 100 possessions. Conclusion is that Chauncey's shooting percentage could arguably need to be adjusted upward to make up for the era in which he played. However, this only looks at 1 year and doesn't blend in the league wide scoring averages from each year. It also only looks at the top defensive teams, not the average of all teams. Diminishing returns here...

Isiah led the NBA in turnovers 2 times, was #2 in turnovers another 4 times and overall was in the top 5 in turnovers 12 times in his career.
He was in the top 5 in assists "only" 6 times (relatively only of course since that is pretty impressive on its own).

Billups was #2, and #9 in assists in his best years and was never in the top 10 in turnovers. More conservative style in a league that was dominated by defenses like Indiana, NJ, and San Antonio. Also, he was under the controlling eye of Larry Brown during his figurative years, where he was instructed to play that way.

Isiah only cracked the top 10 in win shares once when he was #7 in the league.

Chauncey did it 5 times (#3, #5, #6, #8, and #8).

Isiah never cracked the top 10 in the league in offensive rating while Billups did it 5 times (#6, 1, 4, 3, and 9).

I understand the argument that Isiah was better, but to throw out any type of analysis and say there is no comparison seems stubborn. More than any other position, PG's are judged on the accomplishments of their teams. On that comparison, I think that it is very close. Isiah reeled off a near miss and then back to backs. Chauncey nearly missed a back to back and then kept the team at a high lever for a long time. After he left and went to Denver, they had their best playoff showing in decades. CB was one Sheed missed defensive assignment from joining Isiah in untouchable status.

I never really liked win-shares as a measure, but can't tell if I have a reasonable argument against it or it's just because I throw the book down in disgust and boredom about half way through the description of the method every time I try to read it.

He is sitting at No.2 on the big list of rookies, completely changes games (75% of the time) when he comes on. Plays solid defense, can score, pull boards all day. It's not hype. He is legit good, but not getting played and getting yanked for doing, in some cases, the right thing.

Monroe's rookie year:
November: started 0 out of 15 games. Averaged 17.8 mpg.
December: started 3 out of 15 games. 21.8 mpg
Jan: 11 out of 15. 32.7 mpg.
Feb through the end: started all games 34 out of 34, averaged just over 33 mpg.

Drummond:
November: started 0 out of 16 games. Averaged 17.3 mpg
December: started 0 out of 9 so far. Averaging 21.0 mpg

So, their minutes are almost identical. This is about the point where Monroe broke into the starting lineup.